[...] wonders at the posing of the three Harry Potter stars on the cover of Entertainment Weekly in What’s Wrong With This Cover?. It’s interesting to point out that aside from the first commentor (who is female and agrees [...]

Now I’m trying to think of instances of women using their wands in the series; the wands in all cases seem like such flimsy little phalli, when it’s really force of will that counts. Ron’s Mom uses hers to cook, IIRC.

Anyway, I can see all three covers fitting the characters. Ron looks like he’s trying to cover up a severe lack of confidence and Hermione has that “Oh really?” look that fits the character. (I’ve always thought of Hermione who doesn’t threaten to use a spell, she calmly tells you to stop and if you don’t… zap.) Too bad that the Ron & Harry covers look so similar to draw that question.

and I think I agree with the general mood of the earlier posts, it’s really Ron in his copycat pose that comes off the worst (of course, he’s also the worst actor of the main cast too, so maybe it’s the best they could get from him). At the very least they could have referenced the earlier posts and had his wand sparking or blowing up or spouting frogs or something.

Harry with a broomstick, since that’s one of his biggest strengths.

Hermione with a book, as she’s always doing research.

Ron… with either a rat or little owl I guess.

1) If Hermione had a wand, and Ron didn’t, would you have noticed?

2) If Hermione had a wand and Harry didn’t, would you have noticed?

(Dear lord, I would hope Tibetan Yak Hearders would have noticed that. They are advertising “Harry Potter and…”, a movie about the young wizard, Harry Potter, and everyone *but* Harry has a wand? How dumb a photographer do you have to be to think you can get away with that one?)

3) If Hermione had a wand, and both Ron and Harry were distaff, would you have noticed?

(Except perhaps to rant about the stupid photographer who doesn’t know Harry Potter…)

“Giving Hermione a wand would have disgruntled a knee-jerk segment of the population, but boy, are we afraid of sexual overtones on a cover” is a cynical statement of how powerful the Wal-Mart lobby is these days.

I honestly don’t think they even imagined for a second the consequences of giving Ms. Watson a wand. I don’t think they ever thought about it at all. Not even to the point “What is she supposed to be doing?” Just like I don’t think they ever considered any other pose for Ron, even though “Competant Mage” is even further from his character than “I don’t need a wand, you silly boy!” is from Hermione’s. One size fits all, boys get column A, girls get column B.

(This is not meant to be snark, or even some sort of “Gotchya!” that deftly proves my point. But if the three covers had been Harry and his two gal pals, and only he had a wand, would you have even noticed? Or is it only the “Female as Oddity” that allows for “Female as Powerless”?)

(And I have just laid claim to my own private corner of Hell by validating all of the Harry/Ron Slash-fic out there…)

On the other other hand, if they had a cover with an under-age girl grasping a rod and thrusting it at the reader, doesn’t that just open them up to charges of “denying female power in favor of patriarchal psycho-symbology”? (Or just exploitation, period, given the number of “How long until she is 18″ clocks out there on the Internet…) Even if she was treated the same, there is just no winning here.